The Scouring of the Shire

This is a great hobbit chapter.

Cheers for Bill the Pony, kicking Bill Ferny into the night! Laughed at:


'Neat work, Bill,' said Sam, meaning the pony.


Was also highly amused by the Brandywine hobbits referring to Merry and Pippin as "uncommonly large and strong-looking". :-) Tolkien certainly had a dry wit, didn't he? And I can imagine the exasperation of Sam and the other hobbits. They've just saved the world, so it's no wonder they have no patience with a "Pimply-Face" hobbit with delusions of grandeur.

When the obnoxious ruffian referred to Frodo and his companions as "you little rat-folk", I could almost hear the invisible audience all around murmuring in anticipation of impending carnage.

Interesting that Frodo immediately assumes that Lotho Pimple is a frightened prisoner rather than the main instigator. I also confess that I don't really remember who Lotho Pimple is. Is he a relative of Lobelia's?

I almost cheered out loud during the scene when Farmer Cotton is being threatened by the ORs (Obnoxious Ruffians), and several hundred angry hobbits step out into the firelight to defend him.

I'm very glad that Frodo told Old Gamgee about how wonderful Sam had been in their adventure, and that songs were being made up about him.

Wow, here I thought the fighting was all over, and then comes the Battle of Bywater. Sad that so many hobbits were killed or wounded. :-( I'm very glad that none of our known hobbits were among them...that would have been very cruel, to give the impression that everyone was going to live, and then kill off one of them as an afterthought!

I felt for Sam, bursting into tears at the sight of the Party Tree being chopped down. HE HAD BETTER GET A CHANCE TO USE HIS ELVEN EARTH.

!!!!!! And Saruman is Sharkey!!!!!!!

I almost dropped the book when I read that. You all weren't kidding when you said there was still more excitement to come. Those last few pages of the chapter were riveting. I -didn't- like Saruman's prediction that Frodo would have neither health nor a long life. Was he just being cruel, or doing a true foretelling?!

I still find Frodo's merciful nature re: bad guys somewhat baffling. I'm sure there have been many in-depth discussions on this topic; I'd be interesting in hearing the general consensus, if there is one. Why would he want to spare someone like Saruman? Would he feel the same way if Saruman struck down Sam in front of Frodo's eyes? Or Bilbo?

I'll be out of town for the next few days, so likely won't be posting another report until the weekend.

[Previous entry: "The Return of the King: BOOK VI - Chapter 7"] [Next entry: "The Return of the King: BOOK VI - Chapter 9"]

Posted by Katerina Str. @ 2001 Jun 20 09:27 AM EST

Ufthak,

That was a *great* answer!

Shows tremendous insight.

Posted by Doug @ 2001 Jun 20 09:31 AM EST

Nicely said, Ufthak (still alive, eh?).

You're almost there, Deb. Once you've finished, with or without the appendices, you'll have the whole experience to reflect on. I hope you will grace us with your continuing and developing thoughts. This has plainly been an enjoyable experience for you, and very rewarding for us.

I won't say "well done!" just yet, but I'll think it.

Robert Jones.

Posted by Robert Jones @ 2001 Jun 20 09:31 AM EST

Typical! I'm distracted for five minutes and Debbie goes and posts comments on another chapter. First place will be mine one day / chapter.

Posted by Annatar The Fair @ 2001 Jun 20 09:33 AM EST

The big hard guy being taken down by a mass of cute furry little critters. It could be any number of Gremlinesque horror films, but was Tolkien the first?

Posted by Annatar The Fair @ 2001 Jun 20 09:48 AM EST

I read the question at the end here and then, as I scrolled to post, read Ufthak's comment. Which echoes my own.

This is, for me, the scene that redeems Frodo's "failure" to destroy the ring himself. It means that he has clearly learned from the experience that everyone has a reason to continue going forward and to kill them before that time may destroy everything you've worked for. As Gollum saved the world by being in the right (wrong) place at the right (wrong) time (parenthetical comments are from Gollum's perspective), so perhaps Saruman would have the same opportunity. Thus Frodo chooses to act in a fashion that shows his complete acceptance of the response to his comment about killing Gollum way, way, way back these many books ago.

In other words, what Ufthak said.

Posted by Bill Sutton @ 2001 Jun 20 09:48 AM EST

Hallo Debbie!
"Why would he want to spare someone like Saruman?" you ask. Well, it seems that beyond forgiveness and redemption and the like, this is the worst punishment Frodo could have possibly inflicted upon Saruman. Frodo does not allow Saruman to blame the Hobbits for his downfall, and simply and maliciously die in their hands. Saruman's rage and anger that is usually created by an evil mind would stay contained in him and eventually destroy or heal him... Except for the fact that he wants to preserve what is left of the innocense of the Hobbits by not allowing them to become malicious murderers, Frodo realises here that he has no right to impose an end on Saruman, and no right to end the life of another excistence. It's not mercy, in the sense that he feels sorry for Saruman, that makes Frodo decide to let him go- it's wisdom which brings with it the knowledge that his mission was to bring back natural order rather than reverse the roles of victor and vanquished. Am i making any sense, or am i just being confusing?

To a clearer point: i heard that the Scouring of the Shire wouldn't be in the movies... Please tell me i'm wrong because i love this part!

And something further: what exactly does Scouring mean? for years i just thought it meant something like "burning", "defilement" et cet. I hadn't bothered to look it up then. Now i did look it up it turns out it's something about scrubbing a stain off... Does Scouring hence mean cleancing?

Posted by yiorgos @ 2001 Jun 20 09:51 AM EST

Isn't it great to see the hobbits cleaning up messes like this? I loved it when Pippin couldn't take the ruffian sneering at Frodo. And hurray for the horn of Rohan!

I've got to say, Debbie, that I just love your comments. When you go back and reread your former posts, I hope you'll be as amused as we've all been by your plaintive musings on future chapters. We saw it all happen with Bill the pony. Now we'll just wait to see what happens next. :)

Posted by Sandy @ 2001 Jun 20 10:01 AM EST

Aside from Frodo looking to redeem himself, I think he also has a unique viewpoint that none of the others share. He's weary, more than any of the others. He's mortally weary if that's possible, as intimated by Sharkey (Saruman). He feels that his endeavours, however noble, have to a large degree robbed him of whatever life he would / could / should have had. It is this perspective that gives him such reverence for all life and makes him loathe to be part of robbing another person of whatever life they may have ahead of them, whether they server good or evil.

Posted by Annatar The Fair @ 2001 Jun 20 10:02 AM EST

Oh, I love this chapter, wish I had more time to comment! (it's recess) Anyway, I'll post through the day when I can.

First of all, I'm surprised you didn't comment on what I find to be the most delightful surprise in this chapter- Sam left a sweetheart in The Shire! Rosie Cotton, how lovely is that?? And she has one of the funniest lines in the entire book here, "Well, be off with you! If you've been looking after Mr. Frodo all this while, what d'you want to leave him for, as soon as things look dangerous?". Hahahahahaha! I love that line :).

And who takes over the hobbit rebellion, rallies the troops, leads the charge, comes up with all the plans? Quiet, thoughtful, unassuming Merry who truly comes into his own in this chapter. Very cool.

Darn, there's the recess bell. I'll be back when I can!

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jun 20 10:09 AM EST

Scouring: One of its definitions (all of which relate to cleaning / cleansing)is to remove dirt or impurities from something by washing.
Hence, we have the hobbits removing all dirt and impurities from the Shire in a cleansing action to restore their homeland to the way it should be, clean and pure.

Posted by Annatar The Fair @ 2001 Jun 20 10:13 AM EST

You could relate Frodo's comments regarding Saruman to ones that Tolkien would have been familiar with: David's comments about King Saul in the Bible (1 Sam 24).

King Saul has been rejected by God because his disobedience and God has designated David as his successor. Saul is jealous at David's ascendancy and his popularity among the people, and has been pursuing him and trying to kill him. Then David finds Saul alone (actually, Saul decides to use the cave where David is hiding as a toilet), and David's men urge him to kill Saul.

David replies: "The LORD forbid that I should do such a thing to my master, the LORD's anointed, or lift my hand against him; for he is the anointed of the LORD."

Frodo's response is similar, in that he recognizes the fact that Saruman is of a greater kind, with a higher calling, even though he failed in that calling. The mercy of Frodo/David is one that leaves Saruman/Saul to be judged by the One who appointed them.

Posted by Jonathan @ 2001 Jun 20 10:18 AM EST

Frodo has indeed become wise...What's that quote from Gandalf....

Who are you to say who deserves death? Many that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?

It's something like that anyway. Frodo has learned that there is an order to the world. He didn't kill Saruman, who did deserve to die, and he died anyway. Things have a way of working out for good, if you act in a goodly way. Evil begets Evil. This is a theme for LOTR which is a good lesson for everybody.

Posted by Big Mike @ 2001 Jun 20 10:19 AM EST

I believe Lotho is Lobelia's son.

I agree with what Ufthak and others have said about Frodo's mercy. Under the struggle (and ultimate failure) with the ring Frodo has learned that no one inside the "story" (or music) of the One knows when anyone else's part in that story is over. Fordo looks on both Gollum and Saruman through that experience. It's what Someone long ago meant by "let the one without sin cast the first stone."

Posted by Steve B @ 2001 Jun 20 10:22 AM EST

From Steve B, above:

"Fordo..."

LOL

Sorry, just sounded like a hobbit who works at a car dealership!!!

Posted by Fatty Lumpkin @ 2001 Jun 20 10:27 AM EST

For such a confirmed Catholic, Tolkien seems to have a strong sense of Karma. Killing Saruman in anger, in an "evil mood", would have been bad karma. A little bit more of the innocence of the hobbits would have been lost had they indulged in this vengeance against a once-great wizard who fought and struggled against Sauron and failed in ways only Frodo could in some measure comprehend. Remember, Frodo fought and struggled too, and yes, he failed too. Gollum was there to nip off Frodo's finger while he could still be saved. The difference between Frodo and Saruman may be simply that stroke of luck.

Posted by Greg @ 2001 Jun 20 10:47 AM EST

Frodo is extraordinary in this chapter, but he gives one pause, almost frightens you with the changes he has gone through. You know, it's a little disconcerting when you get to the last chapter of your favorite book for the fiftieth time and you're still looking at the central character and saying, "Frodo Baggins, who the heck -are- you?". Because it's possible to love Frodo dearly and still feel that way at this point in the book.

The changes in Frodo brought about by the Ring are never clearer than in this chapter when he has come full-circle back to The Shire again. He's become set apart, almost other-worldly, somehow seeing beyond the rustic concerns of other hobbits, whether he'd choose to be that way or not. His vision and mercy in this chapter, to the ruffians, to Wormtongue, even to Saruman, who tries to kill him, is awe-inspiring (but it's an awe that inspires both wonder and fear), like Frodo has gained a wisdom and an insight in his quest that should be beyond him, that will always strand him alone even within The Shire.

So, though, Frodo's actions are wonderful in this chapter, his "saintliness" has a slight edge, leaves me troubled.

I guess that's all I should say on that topic for now.

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jun 20 10:48 AM EST

I just love reading all these comments! Such depth of thought in many of these posts. I always pity those sneering elitists who dismiss this book as just "escapist" drivel. They have no idea of the treasure and the truths that they are missing. (I, for one, love "escaping" into the wider world that Tolkien opens up for us. It brings me back to this one with more understanding and insight about what's really important.)
Let me add my thanks, Debbie, for allowing us the opportunity to go on this journey with you, and to add our comments to your own.

Posted by Tom @ 2001 Jun 20 10:54 AM EST

A question springs to mind.
How much of Saruman's hatred of Frodo (and possibly hobbits in general) is his own and how much is passed on via the Palantir from Sauron and his enmity for a race that has hid his ring from him for hundreds of years?

Posted by Annatar The Fair @ 2001 Jun 20 11:12 AM EST

Got to echo Allison's comment: So, Debbie, Rose get's no mention? Sam has grown quite a bit too when you think of that hobbit Gandalf hauls up by an ear at the window of Bag End some time ago! A remarkable bunch, those hobbits. Now we've come near to the end of the Great Adventure, Bill the Pony is back! and have only the final chapter to resolve... Quite a journey. Thanks again Debbie.

Posted by Christopher B. @ 2001 Jun 20 11:22 AM EST

Please, read the last chapter today Debbie! I don't think I'll make it if I have to wait all the way to the weekend for the last chapter...

Posted by Pepijn Schmitz @ 2001 Jun 20 11:37 AM EST

You're right, I forgot to post about Rosie!!!!!! I -love- the idea that Sam has a Shire sweetheart. Odd that he never thought or spoke of her during the entire adventure, tho, isn't it? I want to find out more about Rosie.

Posted by Debbie @ 2001 Jun 20 11:49 AM EST

Debbie: Sam's thoughts on Rosie will be illuminated in the next chapter :). But we have seen her mentioned once, though it's easy to miss on the first read. Sam thinks about her back in Mordor in what I always find a very sad and poignant moment. It's just after Sam's concluded that his destiny will be to get as far as the mountain and then die with Frodo. He says, "But I would dearly like to see Bywater again, and Rosie Cotton and her brothers, and the Gaffer and Marigold and all" (Marigold is Sam's younger sister). Just so sad that the first mention we get of Rosie is when Sam thinks he's never going to see her again.

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jun 20 11:54 AM EST

Here's the other Rosie quote from Chapter 3, Sam's thinking back to The Shire again:

He felt the cool mud about his toes as he paddled in the Pool at Bywater with Jolly Cotton and Tom and Nibs, and their sister Rosie. "But that was years ago," he sighed, "and far away. The way back, if there is one, goes past the Mountain."

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jun 20 12:15 PM EST

When I read your comments it came to me that Frodo is not the only one who tends to forgive people rather than kill them. Gandalf is the first to give Gollum or Saruman another chance instead of killing him. And I'sure that there are some scenes where Aragorn or Faramir forgive their enemies, but I cannot remember them now. The ability to forgive seems to be one of the most important parts of Tolkien's concept of goodness and wisdom.
But when I think of it: There is only one person in the book who has done something evil and repents, and that is Boromir. Most people don't take advantage of their second chances, so forgiving seems rather pointless. Or did I forget something?

Posted by Susanna @ 2001 Jun 20 12:22 PM EST

And I love the fact that though everyone else in The Shire thought the travellers were dead, Rosie tells Sam that she'd been waiting for him to return since the Spring. And how her eyes shine when Frodo tells everyone how brave and famous Sam is. It's so romantic :). Arwen and Aragorn and Eowyn and Faramir are great, but Sam and Rosie are my favorite couple in LOTR :).

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jun 20 12:29 PM EST

Wow, I finally posted something people thought was insightful. Another thing of note with the Scouring and with the whole denouement in general is that Tolkien knew what it was like to come back home after a war and try to readjust. He was a soldier at the Somme where some of his friends died. I think he knew how to write about how some things can never be the same again after an experience like that. It reminds me in some ways of the movie The Best Years of Our Lives, which also touches on that subject.

Posted by Ufthak @ 2001 Jun 20 12:59 PM EST

Two comments here: Susannah suggests that forgiving seems pointless since so many of the characters who are "forgiven" don't take advantage of their second chances. I'm no theologian, but I think that is not really the point of forgiveness.

Giving the transgressor forgiveness does not remove personal guilt or responsibility from that person. It is not like a government granting amnesty or a President granting clemency. Forgiveness is an individual thing. It removes the hate from the person doing the forgiving. It can also remove the burden of that hate from the transgressor. For Saruman, by this time, "hate" is the only center left to his life. It is not a burden that he wants to have lifted. Frodo's forgiveness is not so much a benefit for Saruman as it is for Frodo himself and the other hobbits. If Frodo were to build more of his life around a hatred of Saruman and others, he would eventually find himself twisted with that hate, like the Sackville-Bagginses and other characters in the book.

Finally, "Lotho Pimple" is Lotho Sackville-Baggins, son of Lobelia and Otho. He slips in briefly in Book One, Chapter 3, "Three is Company."

Posted by Steve from Indiana @ 2001 Jun 20 01:08 PM EST

This is one of the things I love about LOTR. If someone else was writing this, the end of the books could very well come with the crowning of Aragorn (or shortly after). I love that Tolkien takes the time and care to wrap up the loose ends (Gimli and Legolas fulfilling their pledge, Bill the Pony, the Hobbits fate after their adventures, etc.). It makes a much better story arc and shows a commitment that many authors don't have. It is easy to just peter out after the action ends.

Posted by Cameron @ 2001 Jun 20 01:14 PM EST

Debbie,

Can't believe you've almost reached the end; too bad *this* road can't go ever on and on :-(

As JRRT said in the Foreword, the only problem with LOTR is that it's too short :-\

I've spent way too much work time following you along the whole way. Loved watching your perspective on ME changing and growing in so many ways. (MINOR SPOILER ALERT - reminds me of Bilbo's progress through The Hobbit.)

Have also enjoyed the little community that's come together around you, with their insights and questions, their laughs and tears.

Don't rush the final chapter Debbie, it's worth savouring.

Posted by Bodo Hardbottle @ 2001 Jun 20 01:15 PM EST

I agree, Deb, save that last chapter until you get back on the weekend. There's more than enough to talk about here now (sadly, chapter discussions tend to close down as soon as a new one begins), it keeps the end away a bit longer and it means I can focus on getting my report cards written for the rest of the week! :)

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jun 20 01:30 PM EST

Cameron: that's what I love about this chapter, too. Hooray for Bill the Pony and Sam and Rosie and Merry and Pippin and Frodo!!

Debbie: you're almost done. :-( LOTR is definitely way too short!!

Posted by E. Gamgee @ 2001 Jun 20 01:36 PM EST

Don't worry,yiorgos, from what all I've read, the Scouring of the Shire is IN. They're just debating about how the death of Saruman is going to be depicted--the People in charge of ratings do not like throat-slittings, and since Peter Jackson is going for a PG-13 rating, they might have to do something else to show the Saruman's death.
I've really enjoyed reading your comments, Debbie. I know this been said before! But, I've loved seeing your feelings change toward the different characters, and watching your reactions to what's going on.
Jonathan, I feel your comment about Frodo was right on the mark.
Allison, I love Rosie too-she seems such a good match for Sam.
:-) I laugh every time I read that line of hers.

Posted by Juleen @ 2001 Jun 20 01:41 PM EST

I was just reading an article on Tolkien and pacifism written back in 1972. It focuses a lot on this chapter as a key to Tolkien's thought on the subject. He carefully balanced glorius battle scenes (like the charge of the Rohirrim) with the horrors of war (the severed heads shot into Minas Tirith) without descending into clinically brutal descriptions of battle. But here he gets to the meat of the matter -- sometimes what is good has to be defended to the death, but all life is precious. Can this be reconciled? It's very difficult, and as Merry tells Frodo, "You won't rescue Lotho, or the Shire, just by being shocked and sad, my dear Frodo." I love the way Tolkien leaves these unresolvable questions open, with excellent points on both sides -- he is anything but simplistic, no matter what some critics have to say.

Posted by Janet Croft @ 2001 Jun 20 01:46 PM EST

Forgot--don't you love Sam's reaction to Rosie's comment? "This was too much for Sam. It needed a week's answer, or none. He turned away and mounted his pony." And Rosie's trust and confidence in her Sam is displayed when she says right after, "Take care of yourself, and come straight back as soon as you have settled the ruffians!"

Posted by Juleen @ 2001 Jun 20 01:47 PM EST

Bah! What's not to like about throat-slittings? ;)

It's true that there is always a sadness upon reaching the end of a great epic story such as this.

So, how frequently do you all think you'll watch the DVDs when they are released? :)

Posted by Breeze @ 2001 Jun 20 01:53 PM EST

The other telling question in this chapter is when the Gaffer asks Frodo, "And I hope my Sam's behaved hisself and given satisfaction?". Love Frodo's dry response, "Perfect satisfaction, Mr. Gamgee," and then goes on to tell how Sam's being treated by the world outside The Shire now. Sam has really come such a long long way through the quest.

I also like how we're told Lobelia beats up one of the ruffians with her umbrella before they threw her into the Lockholes :). She's a tough ol' hobbit. You gotta like her in the end and who would have guessed that?

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jun 20 01:59 PM EST

One thing that stuck in my head, when I first saw the cast on TORN and other sites, is Sarah Mcloed. She looks like a great Rosie. I don't think I've seen her anywhere else but this picture of her looks hot.

http://www.theonering.net/movie/cast/mcleod.html

Sam is the kind of guy who is a simple gardener and probably a little funny looking. He is such a great guy that he gets the pretty girl. (another reason to think of Sam as the hero) I bet some other hobbits were hoping Sam wouldn't come back, so they could go after her.

Posted by Big Mike @ 2001 Jun 20 02:06 PM EST

:D Love your comments about Sam and Rosie, Big Mike.

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jun 20 02:12 PM EST

Now that you mention Rosie Cotton, do female hobbits also have big hairy feet?

Posted by Bloho Cheesebottom @ 2001 Jun 20 02:44 PM EST

I felt I had to share this treasure I just found ... If you like animated smilies, check out this site! The text is unfortunately in german but the images!

http://www.plauder-smilies.de

Posted by Ioreth @ 2001 Jun 20 02:47 PM EST

I believe that it is in the foreword to Lord of the Rings that Tolkien says that the parts of Lord of the Rings that some fans see as its biggest faults are seen by other fans as their favourites parts.

He says that although he himself sees many faults with the Lord of the Rings, the only one worth mentioning is also the one that most fans of the book seem to agree with: The book is too short!

Posted by Don @ 2001 Jun 20 03:07 PM EST

I would think that female hobbits had hairy feet, the description does not specify male hobbits as having leathery soles and thick curly hair on their feet not unlike that on their heads.

I found this quote about hobbits that does not fit with this chapter but is a good quote about hobbits.

You do not know your danger, Théoden,' interrupted Gandalf. 'These hobbits will sit on the edge of ruin and discuss the pleasures of the table, or the small doings of their fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers, and remoter cousins to the ninth degree, if you encourage them with undue patience.'

cute site, Ioreth

Posted by Big Mike @ 2001 Jun 20 03:11 PM EST

"OR's" - LOL what inspired that abbrieviation?
Debbie, normally I'd be getting impatient and urging you to read the next chapter, but not now! I can't believe I'm saying this, but wait! And read the last chapter v-e-r-y s---l---o---w---l---y! It will all be over before you know it. I have a serious love-hate relationship with finishing LOTR.

I tremendously admire the wisdom and compassion that Frodo shows in this chapter. And I admire Tolkien for including such enlightened themes in his work.

Ufthak - great comments!
Fatty Lumpkin - LOL Fordo! that's great!
Bodo Hardbottle - Yes! LOTR is WAY WAY too short!
Juleen - Whew! i hope you're right. The movies won't be the same without this chapter (not that they'll be the same anyway). I'll just have to keep my fingers crossed until the end of 2003! bah!
Breeze - LOL, methinks I will watch the DVD's very frequently. I'll definitely have to set aside some weekends to watch the whole thing straight through!
Allison - Interesting comment about Frodo inspiring wonder and fear. I don't quite understand what you mean so I'm very interested to hear what you have to say about this. Also, I wanted to thank _you_ for all of your comments and for sort of 'co-piloting' this journey. I think one of the reasons it has been so great is that you and Debbie are good friends. It makes the whole thing very much more personal for all of us. :o)

Posted by Phil @ 2001 Jun 20 03:11 PM EST

Thanks, Phil :). I can't begin to tell you how much I've enjoyed these boards and watching this community spring up and become close, how much I've enjoyed watching Deb become a Tolkienite before my eyes :). It's just been the most extraordinary experience, I could never have imagined how intense or emotional it would become commenting on how much I love LOTR or sharing those feelings with others who love the book just as much as I do. It's been an incredible group effort.

Hey! We're all saying good-byes too early again! :)

Re: Frodo inspiring wonder and fear. Should clarify that, I meant I felt fear -for- Frodo rather than fear -of- Frodo. How can one small hobbit bear the weight of the pain and the wisdom that he is now learning to deal with? I was just so aware of that fear for Frodo in the scene where he shows such extraordinary mercy to Saruman and Wormtongue. I'll be willing to go into more detail in the next chapter, but a lot of my feelings about Frodo at this stage are too heavily tied up in the last chapter to really resolve in this chapter here. But I'm really looking forward to talking about Frodo even more fully in the next chapter.

Find myself pondering, too, the other scenario Deb suggests above- how would Frodo have reacted if Saruman had killed Sam, instead? My instinct tells me that he still would have spared Saruman's life and maybe that's where the fear and wonder comes in, too. My sense that Frodo's sense of mercy has become so evolved it's beyond what I can fully comprehend.

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jun 20 04:05 PM EST

Yay! Near the end. Don't get me wrong, it's also sad, but Tolkien of all people appreciated the warm coziness of coming to the end of a long journey and putting your feet up by the fire to reflect with a warm mug of your favorite hot beverage.

I think the question about why Frodo would spare Saruman has been covered very well, but let me add that if Frodo had given in to those methods, it would have been very like Boromir's error in wanting to fight the Enemy with his own Ring. By using the methods of the Enemy, you may achieve your short term goals, but ultimately you become the Enemy yourself and are no better off. Saruman, who himself started out as one of the wise, thought that he was playing a game of kill or be killed, where the victor would earn the right to take out his spitefulness on the vanquished. In fact, when he was beaten, he desperately wanted to die, as validation of his assumptions about the Shire/Middle Earth. Frodo essentially said to him, there is more to me than you suppose and I reject the role you have defined for me. Go in peace.

This chapter is my favorite part of the LOTR, and I'm convinced it was the most important one for Tolkien as well. Since I will be out of town next week when Debbie posts her response to the last chapter, this is as good a time for me to plug the thesis I wrote on LOTR six years ago. It's posted on TheOneRing.net, minus my footnotes (mostly citations) which apparently didn't translate to html. If you want, I can send you the complete version. It's called Where the Shadows Lie: The Battle Against Modernity in J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings.

http://greenbooks.theonering.net/guest/files/050101_black/001title.html

Posted by Kevin @ 2001 Jun 20 04:22 PM EST

That was yours, Kevin? I just finished reading it about a week ago. I found it very enjoyable reading and very insightful.

Posted by Tom @ 2001 Jun 20 04:29 PM EST

http://www1.tolkienonline.com/movies/profiles.cfm?ID=46

Here is a link to another site with Sarah (Rosie) Inforamtion

Posted by Bob @ 2001 Jun 20 05:05 PM EST

So many wonderful comments, and comments on comments, on this chapter! Thank you Debbie (again!) and thank you all! This is such great reading :))

I'd like to add someting about Frodo and his disconcerting other-wordliness in these last few chapters (very interesting thoughts, Allison. And I agree that there will be more to say later...). I know that we all, and Tolkien himself even, think that Frodo's failure at Mount Doom wasn't really a failure at all, because noone could have withstood the Ring's power at that moment and Frodo had given everything he had in him to fulfill the quest. I feel that way, too.

But I wonder: did Frodo forgive himself? Or did he carry, along with the massive burden of traumatic experiences, a deep feeling of guilt? A guilt that he couldn't really talk about with anyone, because everyone had already forgiven him? I know there is not really anything clearly mentioned about this in the books - which I find a bit strange. If I put myself in Frodo's situation, I would surely feel a lot of guilt for claiming the ring and jeopardizing the whole world at the last minute! Then being left alone with that guilt... that would really eat me from inside, and make me feel apart from the world!

I guess a psychologist would say that Frodo is suffering from posttraumatic stress syndrome and depression, and in bad need of psychotherapy...

When he stops Sam from attacking Saruman, he says "He is fallen, and his cure is beyond us; but I will still spare him, in the hope that he may find it." This might echo Frodo's identification with Saruman, who carries an enormous amount of guilt. Frodo's hope for Saruman's cure is at the same time a hope for a cure for poor Frodo himself, traumatized - and guilt-ridden?

Posted by Katarina @ 2001 Jun 20 05:10 PM EST

The signals are there, that Sam thinks about Rosie, as in the two quotations posted above.It's almost the only female hobbit he mentions.And she's great, pragmatic and faithful even when times were hard.

Completely irrelevant, I know but, I named my daughter after Rosie Cotton.

Aelinwen

Aelinwen

Posted by Aelinwen @ 2001 Jun 20 05:19 PM EST

Many thanks to Julie Clarke for sending me the newspaper clipping (Sydney paper) about my LOTR journal. For those interested, I've scanned and posted it at:
http://www.blatherings.com/lotr/pics/sundayheraldsun.jpg

Posted by Debbie @ 2001 Jun 20 05:45 PM EST

Katarina,

Wow, that was a really insightfull comment about Frodo's state of mind. I always felt that we are meant to think that he is just weary of carrying the burden of the ring and the trauma that he has endured. Your comments make me feel for poor Frodo even more. Even though he told the every body what had happened at the last minute (I think). Everybody probably just shrugged it off and said "Well, all's well that ends better". They figured that he got it that far, he would have got the job done some how. He is the only one that fully realizes how close he came to screwing things up for everybody. That's alot of guilt to carry around. It would even make him resent all the praise and accolades that he has been recieving.

Great comment Katarina

Posted by Big Mike @ 2001 Jun 20 05:49 PM EST

In a book called The Tolkien Scrapbook, there's a wonderful black and white drawing of a female hobbit walking up her garden path and reading the morning's mail. She does have large furry feet, but she looks exactly right (IMHO).

Posted by Janet Croft @ 2001 Jun 20 05:54 PM EST

I think everyone has pretty well summed up my thoughts on why Frodo spared Saruman. I was actually relieved that he did so -- it's a testament to his inner goodness that instead of corrupting him, the Ring did just the opposite. It's like he saw evil and rejected it entirely.

Being a pacifist I had to feel a little sad about quiet little Merry leading a big nasty battle, but on the other hand, he did what had to be done. It WAS nice to see him acting independently and taking charge...having become a character in his own right, not just half the Merry/Pippin duo.

I'm happy to see Sam less servile but still so adorably humble after all his experiences. He and Rosie are just so darn cute, too :)

Posted by Teshi @ 2001 Jun 20 05:55 PM EST

It isn't just Frodo's failure at Mount Doom he has to worry about. He failed to resist the temptation of the Ring on Weathertop and is still plagued by the wound he got as a result. Is there still a piece of that knife in him, or did he get it out?

Anyways, Frodo has tasted too much of the conflict outside the Shire's borders. He's more like the Druadan now, the Rangers who spend their days and nights sleeping on the ground to protect the innocence of the Shire without being able to share it.

Wasn't there some mention of Rosie in Book One? I need to start taking my books with me to the office. Er, I mean I need to get back to work.

Posted by Kevin @ 2001 Jun 20 05:58 PM EST

The one thing that troubled me about this chapter is the name "Sharkey". It sounds too much like an American gangster name, at least to me, and just doesn't seem to fit.

Posted by Mary @ 2001 Jun 20 06:00 PM EST

My very nice husband looked up the artist for me -- Michael Green.

Posted by Janet Croft @ 2001 Jun 20 06:03 PM EST

Ya, the Sharkey name sounds funny now, but 50 years ago I'm sure it sounded just as original as most of the other names.

I don't have the text in front of me but "Sharkey" is derived from the orc word for Old Man.

Posted by Big Mike @ 2001 Jun 20 06:52 PM EST

Thank you Big Mike for your response! It made me very happy. You understood my point exactly. :)))

Posted by Katarina @ 2001 Jun 20 07:01 PM EST

I wish that Sydney newspaper had spent some ink on how much you have been enjoying the story once you got into it. It seemed to spend nearly all of its focus on the first couple of days of this project.

Posted by Ufthak @ 2001 Jun 20 07:07 PM EST

Yes, I'd like to see a follow up article too!

I don't really know, but I don't think Frodo would feel too guilty. It goes back to the reasoning that the ring overcame him. Should Theoden feel guilty because he died? And I think that since Frodo's mercy towards gollum allowed Gollum to destroy the ring (plus everything wound up fine in the end) Frodo would be ok. Just very tired and spent, on all levels of being.

Posted by Phil @ 2001 Jun 20 07:26 PM EST

Just a quick note (I'm on vacation, and seem to have missed a lot!!) - my favorite part up till now since the destruction of the Ring is the description of the elves and Gandalf "talking" around the fire after the others had gone to sleep. Its so wonderfully sad, as though Tolkien for just a second transforms the world into a perfect little crystalline sculpture. Love it!

And can't wait for the commentary on the next chapter! You can see, I'm sure, why we Tolkien freaks (which I'm so glad we can count you among, now) read these books over and over again 8-)>

Posted by Nathan @ 2001 Jun 20 07:52 PM EST

first off, Katarina: that's exactly what i was thinking! great to share the same idea....
also, one thing thats great about the hobbits:
i always saw that the return to the Shire made it seem so small and simple compared to all of the great cities and battles and places that the fellowship have been too. its like going back to your old elementary school and remebering how it used to be bigger and more exciting somehow...but with the hobbits, although frodo is kinda seperate from this, even though they've experienced so much, once the return to the Shire, we see how that simplicity never left them. although their changed, rather than feel like a "big fish in a small pond", they use it to thier advantage and save thier home. leave it to hobbits to never lose sight of thier roots and the joys of their youth (or innocence)..at least i felt that way although it could be argued differently, especially with frodo...

Posted by aurora @ 2001 Jun 20 07:57 PM EST

Regarding Frodo not resisting the ring; isn't there some comment early on by Gandalf that Bilbo was the only person to ever voluntarily give up the ring?

I also seem to remember Gandalf saying that if he hadn't he would eventually turn into something Gollum-like. So basically it seems that if the ring is taken from you by force you will spend all of your energy and the rest of your life trying to get it back.

So even though the ring has been destroyed Frodo must still feel some pull to get it back. I imagine it would be like having a limb amputated but you still feel it itch. Poor Frodo.

Posted by John Mc G @ 2001 Jun 20 08:06 PM EST

Sigh.... So close to the end. To add to some commentary on the must- read parts of the Appendices, Appendix A, part III, "Durin's Folk" pretty much contains the plot of the Hobbit, from the point of view of the dwarves. But, the very last 4 paragraphs of Appendix A, and especially the note about one of the last notes of the Red Book is particularly touching and adds a bit more context to the final, brief entries in Appendix B that Allison has mentioned.

Posted by Tish @ 2001 Jun 20 08:16 PM EST

Tolkien apparently agreed with Katarina:

"I think it is clear [...] that when his dark times came upon him [Frodo] and he was conscious of being 'wounded by knife, sting, and tooth, and a long burden' (III 268) it was not only nightmare memories of past horrors that afflicted him, but also unreasoning self-reproach: he saw himself and all that he done as a broken failure." (Letters no. 246, again - certainly one of the most interesting letters he ever wrote)

Posted by Giirov @ 2001 Jun 20 08:28 PM EST

Wow!

I've been lurking since my earlier post, reading the posts and Debbie's comments. I remember Tolkien commenting in the Foreward to the 2nd Edition (Ballantine paperback) that some people seemed to think this chapter was reflective of the situation in England after WWII (as part of the general thought of the story as an allegory of WWII). His explanation that it was a necessary part of the story, as a result of the character of Saruman is interesting, but may be disingenuous. I appreciated Gandalf's comment at the end of the last chapter though, when he said that it was the Hobbits' job to put things right, saying, 'That's what you were trained for.'

So the whole adventure, the loss and the horror, took place to bring these four Hobbits to the point where they could boot some ruffians out of their own country!

I always appreciated Frodo's deference with the Gaffer when Frodo promises to 'put things right.' This is one of the places where Tolkien presents his idealistic view of the English squirearchy, making it seem right and proper, even to a left-leaning American.

Posted by David @ 2001 Jun 20 10:13 PM EST

This is such a -fabulous- discussion! Onwards...

Kevin: "Frodo essentially said to him, there is more to me than you suppose and I reject the role you have defined for me. Go in peace." This is such a beautiful summary of this moment, it made me misty.

Katarina: Wonderful post about Frodo's guilt! I agree with you that that guilt of failure would plague Frodo. And Frodo so rarely opens up and talks about his feelings, even to those he loves, that he would have no way to relieve himself of that guilt or air his hurt to attempt to put the guilt into perspective. I really liked how you indicate that Frodo's mercy for so many other characters may partly be compensation for his inability to show mercy for himself, though it's such a sad notion.

Teshi- I consider myself a pacifist, too, and may have to do some serious self-analysis someday to figure out why Frodo's extreme mercy in this chapter unnerves me so and yet I think Merry is so right in this chapter :). Merry just strikes me as unfulfilled so much of the way through LOTR, letting Pippin take the lead, worrying so much about being left behind from the great deeds of the time. There is so much passion in him, so much intelligence, so much connection to nature and the land, he just needed the right time and the right place for a tremendous force of character to be released. And with the cause of freeing The Shire Merry's moment finally comes. All those hints throughout the book of Merry's potential finally come out here- his brains, his passion, his courage, his practicality, his love of The Shire. And, yes, lives sometimes need to be sacrificed for greater cause, as he witnessed with King Theoden, but it needs the best of many passions, both aggressive and pacifistic, to save The Shire. Merry just shines in this chapter. And so does Frodo.

Kevin, again: No, I don't think we first hear of Rosie until Mordor. I've read somewhere that in the movie Rosie will show up before Sam and the others leave The Shire- I don't know what I think of that. It's just such a lovely surprise to discover Rosie waiting for Sam at the end of his quest.

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jun 20 10:38 PM EST

John McG: Bilbo was the only one willing to give up the ring to that point. Sam also willingly gave up the ring. Out of 6 ringbearers, 2 willingly gave it up.

I think the quest for the ring would have succeeded without Gollum in the end. Sam would have fought Frodo himself, and they both would have gone into the cracks of Doom. That would have been a much sadder ending, but Sam knew it might come to that. He was prepared for just such an ending in my opinion.

Posted by Arthur @ 2001 Jun 20 10:39 PM EST

One of the most poingant parts of the book (to my mind) is what happens when Saruman was killed- "To the dismay of those that stood by, about the body of Saruman a grey mist gathered, and rising slowly to a great height like smoke from a fire, as a pale shrouded figure it loomed over the Hill. For a moment it wavered, looking to the West: but out of the West came a cold wind, and it bent away and with a sigh dissolved into nothing." At the end Saruman remembered where he came from, and seemed to wish to return, but was driven away. In the parallel scene with Sauron, Sauron cannot let go of his hatred, and jusr reaches out impotently for his enemies. One wonders what Tolkien had in mind for Saruman's ultimate fate, for as a Catholic he believed that the soul lasted for eternity, though I suppose the Valar and the Maiar would be more like angelic beings. Gandalf did have a sense of the ultimate nothingness that might be a good description of Hell when he confronted the Lord of the Nazgul at the gates of Minas Tirith- "go back to the abyss prepared for you...Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master." Actually, a discussion of the notion of an afterlife in LOTR might be interesting here or after the last chapter. We'll see if this sparks any interest at any rate!

Posted by Kendra @ 2001 Jun 20 10:42 PM EST

Hot stuff man! i like your site.

Posted by deekybird @ 2001 Jun 20 11:51 PM EST

Hot stuff man! i like your site.

Posted by deekybird @ 2001 Jun 20 11:52 PM EST

Just had to say thank you to the many people here who put into words the thoughts I've had on Frodo's mercy. For me it sums up many of the themes of the book.
I will also hold further thoughts until the book is finished.

Posted by Roland @ 2001 Jun 21 12:22 AM EST

Some comments regarding Merry on this chapter surprised me. It was only natural for Merry to take charge, since Frodo is unwilling to do so. Think about it: Merry was the one who organized the conspiracy (Three is Company). In the Old Forest and in Bree, he showed his maturity and level-headedness. He gets pretty much lumped together with Pippin until the Fellowship is broken, but remember that he fought against the Uruk-Hai when he and Pippin were taken: Pippin remembers Merry cutting off a few orc hands. He's 37 to Pippin's 29, of course, which may explain a great deal!

Sam is two years older, true. But even though Sam has changed, the hobbits' perception of him hasn't as yet; and Merry, like Pippin, is "next in line" for a prominent position in the Shire.

So I wasn't surprised at good old Merry shining in this chapter. I have to admit that he's my favorite character. All that splendid maturity, yet he still wakes up in the Houses of Healing and says, "I am hungry. What is the time?" :)

And yes, wasn't it great fun to meet Rosie! And the Gaffer always makes me laugh, with his disapproval of Sam's mailshirt "whether it wears well or no." Like many others have said, I'm delighted that Tolkien gave us final closure instead of ending with Aragorn's marriage.

Gotta love those hobbits!

A small comment on the upcoming movie: Juleen wrote that that powers-that-be didn't like Grima slitting Saruman's throat, so they decided to come up with something else instead. Excuse me? Being impaled on a spike is less grisly then a slit throat? What a weird world.

Posted by Sandy @ 2001 Jun 21 01:00 AM EST

In view of Tolkien's religious views, could he have been likening Frodo to a Christ-like figure with his mercy to Saruman? Something like "Go forth and sin no more" (or whatever that quotation is).

Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Jun 21 04:03 AM EST

They've apparently filmed the throat-slitting, and a couple of other scenes as well to use if the powers-that-be don't like the T-S. And yes, I agree with you, Sandy. I'm not quite sure how being impaled on a spike is less gruesome than having your throat slit, but there you go.
It's also been said that PJ is going for a "hard" PG-13 rating, trying to push the envelope a bit.

Posted by Juleen @ 2001 Jun 21 04:32 AM EST

Hi!

A very interesting discussion on Frodo's decision not to kill Saruman, but I have to say I think that Ufthak really found the interpretation I believe in, in the very first post.

The discussion bears on many subtle, yet different points, though, and I find myself disagreeing with some of the others that have posted.

Jonathan: I do not think that Saruman's status had anything to do with Frodo's decision and I think such a reasoning would have demeaned Frodo. Are some - "of a greater kind" or "the LORD's anointed" - worth more than others? Should Frodo not have spared Saruman if the latter had not been "of a greater kind"?
I do not think it was out of respect, but out of mercy that Frodo spared him.

Susanna: I do not think one should confuse mercy with forgiveness. I very much doubt that Frodo forgave Saruman for what he had done, but he still showed him mercy.

I think - like some of you have written - that Gandalf's reasoning in the beginning of the Triology is the key to this. Why did Bilbo spare Gollum? Mercy stayed his hand. Many that die deserve to live and as we cannot give them back their life, we should be very hesitant to take life ourselves - even though we may think that someone deserves to die - and instead show mercy (but not necessarily forgiveness).

As someone said, besides being a Great Escape from our ordinary reality, the Lotr also gives many insights on important questions in that reality.

My opinion,

Laurelindorinan

Posted by Laurelindorinan @ 2001 Jun 21 04:54 AM EST

Jonathan,

great point! That Frodo’s speech of Saruman being of a greater kind reminds me always what David said about king Saul.

Steve from Indiana: Agree with your comments concerning forgiveness.

Allison knows this already - that famous Rosie’s line irritates me terribly...thinking like this about our Sam the Brave :o))) I’m glad Sam feels similar: “ This was too much for Sam. It needed a week's answer, or none.“ LOL! :oD
Juleen, I love his reaction!

Breeze: DVD? I don‘t know how I manage to wait untill 2004!!! BTW I don‘t know how I manage to wait until the third movie in 2003, I do‘t know how I manage to wait until the first movie in December, I don‘ t know how I manage to wait until Debbie‘s next post on weekend.....

Katarina: Interesting, I’ve never thought Frodo could feel guilty as I don’t see any guilt on him myself. I thought Frodo never desired to have the Ring - but Saruman did so. Then all “bad” things Frodo did had been caused by the Ring itself, IMHO, while Saruman was feeding only his own desire. Maybe I don’t see it correctly but I always remember first Frodo’s reaction after he got rid of the Ring. It was not “Oh no, what have I done? I’ve almost destroyed the world!” but it was a great relief that it’s over and that the quest was fulfilled. I want to BELIEVE that Frodo didn’t feel guilty. I HOPE he didn’t, ...oh, poor Frodo! :o(.
---well, I agree with Phil at this point, actually, but it seems JRRT himself was of a different opinion (see post of Giirov) :o(

John Mc G: “So even though the ring has been destroyed Frodo must still feel some pull to get it back“ - I agree with you, but there is more about this in the last chapter so I can’t write more.

Arthur: Exactly. When I read the book for the first time I was terribly afraid that Frodo (and even Sam maybe) would die in the end - I had no idea how else could it happen that the Ring would fall to the Fire.

Sandy/concerning Saruman’s end in the movie: Indeed. Being impaled on a spike is not at all less grisly then a slit throat.

Posted by Katerina Str. @ 2001 Jun 21 04:57 AM EST

Katerina,

Good summary of comments so far, and I too hope that Frodo didn't feel guilty - anyone of a lesser stature (and I don't mean height here of course!) would have fallen to the power of the ring long before Mount Doom.

Regarding Saruman's demise in the films, in the pictures I have seen that claim to show this, the spike is in the centre of a large wheel - perhaps if Saruman accidentally falls onto a water wheel or is pushed by Wormtongue (there is a mill in the Shire isn't there?) and impails himself it might not appear too gruesome? Depends how they do it and what it shows, but I guess we'll all just have to wait and see what PJ has planned ... 2003 is a LONG way off...

Posted by Andy @ 2001 Jun 21 05:10 AM EST

Very interesting to read the responses about Frodo's guilt! And thank you Giirov for pointing out Tolkien's letter nr 246 to me! I'm actually reading "Letters" right now, but am only in the beginning. I have browsed through the book a bit, though, and read parts of nr. 246. But I obviously missed the part you quoted. I agree with you, it is a fascinating letter! :) Tolkien also says here that the reason Frodo doesn't show any sign of guilt the moments after the ring has fallen into Mount Doom, is because he then believes he won't survive, and thus give his life in sacrifice. But Frodo survives "and one can observe the disquiet growing in him", Tolkien writes.

On the question of Frodo's mercy, I think that real mercy requiers (spelling?) that you have some feeling of empathy with the other person. And empathy comes easier to you if you have some kind of reference, some past experience that enables you to see and feel things the way the other person does. Frodo, carrying The Ring, and also living for many years with a relative under some influence of The Ring, has experienced his own and Bilbos weaknesses, which enables him to reach out in empathy to Gollum and Saruman.

The beauty of empathy is that when you show mercy to others, you do it out of a feeling of "you and I are essentially the same, I can't judge you because, were I in your situation, I could have done the same." (Even if you don't necessarily forgive the persons actions.) So, in showing mercy to others you actually show mercy to yourself, too! Mercy is a healing power that has the possibility to work both ways (Steve from Indiana was talking about this earlier, if I understood correctly).

I'm not sure Frodo is able to use that possibility for himself, though. He seems too troubled and burdened. As I said, he is in dear need of psychotherapy... (Can you tell I'm studying to become a psychologist? :)) )

Posted by Katarina @ 2001 Jun 21 06:35 AM EST

Just a couple of quick ramblings that I had when reading through some of the posts...
Firstly, wasn't Annatar one of Sauron's many alias's? Wouldn't it therefore seem a little weird to have a name of Annatar the fair? I could be wrong in this, but I'm sure I read somewhere that it was...
Also, I can name two other 'ringbearers' who also gave the ring up willingly, tho they only held it for a short time. Gandalf picked the ring up when Bilbo dropped it, although from memory that was only in an envelope, so I guess that doesn't count. Also Tom Bombadil gave the ring up freely. In fact, I remember reading somewhere that there were in fact a lot of 'lesser' ringbearers (like Bombadil) who gave the Ring up freely, tho they only held it very briefly. I guess the longer you have it, the harder it is to give up, hence Sam was able to give it up quite freely, both out of a lack of desire for mastery, and also due to the fact that he only carried it briefly. This theory also makes Bilbo's giving up of the ring even more extraordinary, as he carried it for a long time, and used it often, which is why it took all of his strength to eventually leave the ring to Frodo.

Posted by Melkontar @ 2001 Jun 21 06:49 AM EST

Annatar the Fair was the name used by Sauron in the Second Age when he walked in disguise among the elven smiths of Eregion. It was an apt name as he was fair to look upon in those days. Annatar means "the bringer/giver of gifts", by the way.

I think (but am not sure) that he used it in Numenor, too, before he was found out.

Posted by Bauglír @ 2001 Jun 21 07:00 AM EST

Silmarillion SPOILER follows.

Melkontar: You are correct, Annatar was Sauron’s alias back in the second age when he was a favourite amongst the elves for many reasons, chief amongst them his beauty and his skill for creating items of beauty and power. It was at this time, while apprenticed to Feanor or Celebrimbor (I can’t recall) that he secretly sabotaged the nine rings (amongst others) whilst creating unknown to anyone the one ring.
Not many people recognise my Alias, so well spotted.
As for the ‘Fair’ part, I keep meaning to check the sacred texts to confirm if he was ever referred to as such. If he was it is particularly apt a amongst the many definitions of fair three are particularly interesting (see 7, 8 and 12 below).

fair adjective (comparative fairer, superlative fairest)

1. reasonable or unbiased: not exhibiting any bias, and therefore reasonable or impartial
2. done properly: according to the rules fair and free elections
3. light-coloured: light-coloured, or with light-coloured hair or skin
4. sizeable: reasonably large in size or quantity They had a fair number of responses to the advertisement.
5. better than acceptable: quite good, or very reasonable a fair understanding
6. acceptable: no more than acceptable or average Your performance this year has only been fair.
7. pleasing to look at: beautiful or pleasing to the eye
8. very great: utter or extreme (informal) We had a fair old struggle to get the piano into the house.
9. METEOROLOGY not stormy or cloudy: sunny or clear, and without much wind
10. not blocked: clear and unobstructed a fair view of the enemy's forces
11. unsullied: not marred by any blemish or stain
12. false despite appearances: seemingly good or true, but actually false or insincere
13. SAILING good for sailing: favourable for sailing or travel by ship a fair wind

Posted by Annatar The Fair @ 2001 Jun 21 07:06 AM EST

Laurelindorenan: You may be right. Frodo shows mercy, not forgiveness to Saruman. I'm no native speaker however and have sometimes difficulties to find the right word.

Steve from Indiana: I 'm no theologian myself, but I think that forgiving means more than removing the hate from the person doing the forgiving. Forgiving is mainly for the sake of the person receiving the forgiving. (Of course, by not being eaten up by his or her own hate, the person doing the forgiving profits as well.)

IMHO forgiving means to offer the other the opportunity to join the community again , if he will change his life. By changing his life the other takes the responsibility for what he has done. Gandalf offers this kind of forgiveness (not mercy) to Saruman, when he offers to help him in Book 6, Chapter 6. But Saruman refuses. Perhaps it's an effect of the ring that he can't change his life any more.

Posted by Susanna @ 2001 Jun 21 07:10 AM EST

Laurelindorenan: You may be right. Frodo shows mercy, not forgiveness to Saruman. I'm no native speaker however and have sometimes difficulties to find the right word.

Steve from Indiana: I 'm no theologian myself, but I think that forgiving means more than removing the hate from the person doing the forgiving. Forgiving is mainly for the sake of the person receiving the forgiving. (Of course, by not being eaten up by his or her own hate, the person doing the forgiving profits as well.)

IMHO forgiving means to offer the other the opportunity to join the community again , if he will change his life. By changing his life the other takes the responsibility for what he has done. Gandalf offers this kind of forgiveness (not mercy) to Saruman, when he offers to help him in Book 6, Chapter 6. But Saruman refuses. Perhaps it's an effect of the ring that he can't change his life any more.

Posted by Susanna @ 2001 Jun 21 07:10 AM EST

P.S. Now that I am unmasked this does not mean you can call me Sauron from now on.

Posted by Annatar The Fair @ 2001 Jun 21 07:11 AM EST

How come no one has quoted Frodo's fabulous line?

'Very well, Mr. Baggins,' said the leader, pushing the barrier aside. 'But don't forget that I've arrested you.'

'I won't,' said Frodo. 'Never. But I may forgive you.'

It's that same dry humor that Aragorn shows in the Houses of Healing. It always makes me laugh. :D

Posted by Pippin @ 2001 Jun 21 07:35 AM EST

Laurelindorenan,

I don't have my LotR in front of me (and unlike the Bible, it's not available online), but I'm pretty sure Frodo says something along the lines of Saruman having been "great" and being of a kind that the hobbits should not lightly lift their hands against.

I wouldn't really call it "respect", but it does seem to me that Frodo's acknowledgement of Saruman's (past) greatness and of his status as an envoy of the Valar contributes to the rationale he gives for his mercy.

And my point is based on Frodo's statements (perhaps someone can find that passage and let us know exactly what he says), not on my own speculation.

And finally, I am NOT implying that Frodo would not have shown mercy to a "lesser" being (say, a Man). It's simply this: "Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls." Saruman is answerable to those who sent him, not to Frodo.

Posted by Jonathan @ 2001 Jun 21 08:00 AM EST

Jonathan:
Here is what Frodo said:
'No, Sam!' said Frodo. 'Do not kill him even now. For he has not hurt me. And in any case I do not wish him to be slain in this evil mood. He was great once, of a noble kind that we should not dare to raise our hands against. He is fallen, and his cure is beyond us; but I would still spare him, in the hope that he may find it.'

Posted by Katerina Str. @ 2001 Jun 21 08:32 AM EST

Katarina,

Thanks for finding that.

Saruman was great once, but Frodo truly has become great.

Posted by Jonathan @ 2001 Jun 21 08:59 AM EST

Jonathan,

I see your point much better now, after having access to the direct quote.

I would still interpret it in terms of mercy being the primary motive for Frodo's decision and the "recognition of former greatness" reference as more related to the fact that it is beyond the hobbits capacity to heal Saruman than to the decision not to kill him, but there seems as you ponit out to have been elements of both.

I am less sure what to make of the Biblical quote, though. Here it seems to be less a sense of mercy and more a question of respecting an anointed of the Lord. But maybe that discussion is for another forum ...

Laurelindorenan

Posted by Laurelindorenan @ 2001 Jun 21 09:16 AM EST

Sandy- Great post on Merry. Makes me realize you're right that we've been given lots of signs that Merry would step up to his role in this chapter. I guess one of the things that threw me here, too, is how less significant Pippin's role is in this chapter in contrast to the larger influence he's had throughout the book. Even in this lengthy discussion here very little has been said about Pippin. But it makes sense, with Pippin being younger, not even being of age yet in The Shire, and less responsible, that his influence in the story would be less here. He certainly does gain life-long respect for his actions in this chapter. And as someone mentioned above, I love the scene where he defends Frodo, stepping forward when the ruffian says he'll worry about King's messengers when they get there and Pippin making it quite clear they're here already.

The Gaffer's lines are fun. I also like his complaints to Frodo, "they've been and dug up Bagshot Row and ruined my taters!". And we certainly know from Sam earlier in the book the wonders the Gamgees can cook up with taters :).

Katerina: I love the Rosie line :). It's so innocent and charming. In some ways it's so refreshing to be back in The Shire after the grandeur of so many of the places we've seen in the story. Despite the sadness, there's so much wonderful comic relief in this chapter. Rosie will know soon enough of Sam's dangerous exploits outside The Shire. She'll be a captive audience as Frodo tells the tales and Sam will be both embarrassed and pleased at the same time at her admiration :).

And I've read the DVD for "Fellowship Of The Ring" is supposed to come out next summer to drum up interest in the second movie and the DVD for "The Two Towers" will be out Summer 2003, etc..

Katarina: Wow, the notion that Frodo was able to forgive himself for his failure when he thinks his life will be sacrificed, but then having to deal with the fact that he survives is another sad twist in this whole look at Frodo's psyche :(.

Speaking of psychotherapy, that's the notion that comes up so strongly for me throughout these last few chapters of the book, I wish Frodo had -talked- to folks he trusted more about what he's going through, Gandalf or Sam, Bilbo, Merry or Pippin. It could have done so much to help him deal with his burdens. I'm sure he didn't want to trouble his friends, but here's a point where Frodo's selflessness really seems to work against him. More on that in the next chapter.

Melkontar- Bilbo giving up the Ring. I wonder, too, if Bilbo ever has to deal with great guilt for having passed the legacy of the Ring on to Frodo?

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jun 21 09:33 AM EST

It seems that both Sam and Frodo were aware that the only way to destroy the ring would likely involve destroying Frodo by throwing him into the Cracks Of Doom with ring in tow and no doubt Sam.
It leads me to wondering how aware both Sam and Frodo were of each others conclusions / excpectations of how things would resolve.

Posted by Annatar The Fair @ 2001 Jun 21 09:45 AM EST

Annatar the Fair: Got to say that I see no indication that Sam, at least, has come to that conclusion at all. I don't think Sam ever does give up hope that Frodo will find the strength to give up the Ring at the Cracks of Doom. All indications seem to be that Sam expects they'll die (both of them) because they'll be stranded on Mount Doom with no food or water in the midst of a terrible desert even if they manage to complete the quest. Call me a hopeless idealist, going back to my arguments in Chapter 1, but I don't think Sam would ever willingly conclude in advance that Frodo must be sacrificed for the good of the quest.

As to what Frodo's thinking at this point, it's hard to tell...

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jun 21 10:01 AM EST

Annatar:
I don't know if they were aware of it. I think they were not thinking of it much. For example, Sam had no idea how to find the Cracks of Doom - he realised it just at the very end. I think he believed that his Master knew how to do it. Frodo had never had much hope they could get so far at all and later, in Mordor, he was not able to thing about it - he just saw the wheel of fire and felt the burden of the Ring. I think that they just wanted to get there and then see what they could do. That's only my humble opinion... :o)

Posted by Katerina Str. @ 2001 Jun 21 10:03 AM EST

Allison,

yes, I agree, as usually :o)

Posted by Katerina Str. @ 2001 Jun 21 10:07 AM EST

To Debbie and the rest of this cherished fellowship,
First, I am both dreading and -so- looking forward to the next chapter, for reasons that Debbie will soon learn. Even after a dozen+ readings, I still have many questions about it, and hope that you all will help to shed some light.

Debbie, thank you for giving me the opportunity to "read" LotR for the first time, again.
And to everyone else, thank you for the gift of your ideas, perspectives and obvious love of all things Middle Earth. It will make my next reading of LotR all the more precious. : )

BTW
Here's a great image of the eagles rescuing Sam and Frodo.
http://www1.tolkienonline.com/gallery/gallery_item.cfm?ID=387

Posted by Sirelle @ 2001 Jun 21 10:35 AM EST

Hmmm.. do I win something if I make the 100th comment?! ;o)

w.r.t Sam and Frodo throwing themselves into the cracks of doom I have to agree with Allison and Katerina. Furthermore, I don't think that Sam would have been able to bring himself to attack Frodo. He loves Frodo too much. At Cirith Ungol he was willing to trash the quest to save Frodo. Maybe he might realize that the best way to 'save' Frodo would be to fight him, but then how would he. Frodo would be invisible! There's a post a couple of chapters back that describes what Tolkien said would have happened had Gollum not taken the ring from Frodo and there's no mention of Sam here.

If Frodo really did feel guilt and remorse POOR Frodo! :o( (sniff!) I knew he carried a heavy burden, but not like this. [[POSSIBLE SPOILER (just don't read the poem!): But it does let me understand a poem I recently read. It's in the Adventures of Tom Bombadil (#15 I think). Anyway the intro says that it had "Frodo's Dreme" scribbled in the margin. The feeling it conveys makes more sense taking Frodo's guilt into account.]]

Kevin - Thanks for the link to your essay. Looks very interesting!!

Posted by Phil @ 2001 Jun 21 10:55 AM EST

this is a tad irrelevant, and i don't know whether anyone else has pointed it out but here goes: when Frodo refers to being hurt by "knife, sting, and tooth", hasn't each of these wounds been caused by Frodo's failure to resist the Ring? I think my presumption fits with the knife wound [was that at Weathertop] and the tooth [Gollum obviously]. What about the sting though? It must be the sting of Shelob, but i can't see an association as yet that will make the theory stand...

Kevin: i =loved= your thesis. I followed your link at about midnight and kept reading until 2 or 2:30, losing some sleep as a result. Amazing.

Which brings me to another thing. Now that Debbie is finishing the book [oh the goodbyes! *sniff*], i realised how many things i've learnt here from everyone! I first read LOTR at about 15 or 16, and to me it was nothing more than a fascinating story. Now that i pride myself in having grown up [i am just about 19 yet, but it is so ironic that we adolescents think our intellect is complete by now!] i find so many interpretations and character complications which i have missed. Also here, i learnt a huge amount of things, and became aware of viewpoints my mind had not even touched! I love the Internet Age! Thanks to Debbie for what turned out to be most rewarding.

Don't you sense a subject for another thesis regarding shared reading and interaction through the Net? Ye gods, i'll be so pissed off when this will be finally over!

Posted by yiorgos @ 2001 Jun 21 11:20 AM EST

I thought my last comment might bring a few replies.
I must admit that I also agree with all the replies.
While I'm sure that all possibilities had at some point reared their ugly head to torment poor (POOR, POOR, Sniff, It's just something in my eye, etc) Frodo, I don't believe Sam would have for one second entertained any thoughts of harming his beloved Frodo. If Frodo had managed to escape wearing the ring, I believe Sam would still have managed to follow him (throughout Middle Earth if necessary) seeking some way to resolve the situation without harming Frodo.

Posted by Annatar The Fair @ 2001 Jun 21 11:26 AM EST

Have to admit I was very struck by Arthur's comment last night about Sam knocking Frodo into the Volcano (suddenly I have a vision of them joining hands and leaping together, just like Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks in that wonderful movie). I thought, no way, would Sam really be *that* true blue? I think the answer is yes, although if he didn't act fast he might not have had the opportunity, because Frodo was pretty formidable at that moment and might have reduced Sam to a cinder for looking at him funny.

Um, there's a lot that could be said about that whole topic of what is mercy and what are the conditions in which it is possible. I actually had a similar conversation with my lady-love last night, believe it or not. To summarize, I think mercy is a kind of love and you have to be able to love and forgive yourself in order to refrain from punishing the traits you find in others. On forgiveness, there's a difference between condemning a person's actions and condemning the person. Saruman, like the rest of us, is more than the worst thing he's ever done.

This is certainly an interesting community that has assembled here. I have an almost uncontrollable urge to run scientific experiments on it. "People who read the Lord of the Rings once a year have a 43% lower incidence of heart disease, report above average levels of job satisfaction, and love citrus fruits."

Posted by Kevin @ 2001 Jun 21 11:59 AM EST

I forgot to say this, but Katarina your discussion of empathy was absolutely beautiful!:
"The beauty of empathy is that when you show mercy to others, you do it out of a feeling of "you and I are essentially the same, I can't judge you because, were I in your situation, I could have done the same." So, in showing mercy to others you actually show mercy to yourself, too!"
This is so well said that I had to comment on it. I think the real challenge in life is to try to have empathy for everyone, whether you can relate to their experiences (as with Frodo to Saruman) or not.

Posted by Phil @ 2001 Jun 21 12:15 PM EST

I also don't think that Sam was prepared to push Frodo into the Cracks of Doom, or that he would have done so. He was pretty shocked when Frodo put on the Ring, and even on the slopes of Mount Doom, he had only come to a dim understanding of the true nature and power of the Ring. We have seen that at Cirith Ungol Sam's love for Frodo is clearly stronger than his sense of responsibility for the Ring and the fate of Middle-earth; would this have changed so quickly?

Again, Tolkien's letter no. 246 lays out what might have happened if Gollum hadn't been there: Frodo would probably have realized that even with the Ring, he would have had no chance against Sauron, and would have cast himself into the Cracks of Doom - or he would indeed have used the Ring for what he perceived as "good" purposes. I believe that in the first case, Sam might even have tried to stop him; in the second case, I think that he would have remained loyal to his master (who would still have appeared as "good").

Posted by Giirov @ 2001 Jun 21 12:29 PM EST

OK, I've become morbidly intrigued, too, by these scenarios of what would have happened on Mount Doom if Gollum hadn't been there :).

Annatar: I agree with you above that Frodo would entertain the scenario you posted even if Sam never would. In fact, if Frodo knew that he would succumb to the Ring at the end, he would rather be sacrificed to fulfill the quest and it would be the right thing for Sam to do. Which doesn't mean for a second that Sam could actually do it :).

Kevin: I think Sam is true blue enough to jump into the volcano -for- Frodo, if there had been any way that would have been beneficial- he certainly shows those traits throughout the book (oh, your poor finger, Mr. Frodo! I would have given him a hand of my own...). Do I think Sam could have pushed both himself and Frodo into the volcano? Nope, no way. Frodo's always going to be more important to Sam than the Ring- he'd try to find another way.

In fact, what seems more likely to me is that after Frodo claims the Ring Sam would try to find him and reason with him, get him to remove the Ring... and the new Dark Lord Frodo would probably bat him into the volcano for his efforts. Ooo, a terribly sad and tragic ending to LOTR :).

Deb, I think we need a new report now... :)

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jun 21 12:45 PM EST

About the only flaw I have ever been able to find in LOTR is the sudden importance of Lotho, who is barely mentioned earlier, and yet it is assumed the reader will remember him and understand the hobbits dislike of him. It feels like there is a scene missing from Book I.

I would be happier too if Rose's relationship with Sam had been established earlier.

I adore Lobelia in this chapter. She reminds me of so many cranky, impossible old women I have known, who drive you crazy, and then when they are gone, you find you miss them.

Posted by Paul Mendenhall @ 2001 Jun 21 12:50 PM EST

Paul: I disagree, in that I enjoy the way Sam & Rosies romantic involvement springs from nowhere, because I think as far as Sam is concerned that is how it's happened. He'd never before really considered Rosie in a romantic light, it's a sort of coming of age thing, suddenly noticing the girl next door, so to speak. Until this reunion Rosie was just the girl next door, her and her brothers were all close friends but nothing else had ever occured to our beloved, sweet, innocent Sam. As for Rosie, she may well have set her sights on Sam long ago, in that way that women often do, waiting for us poor males to catch up.

Posted by Annatar The Fair @ 2001 Jun 21 01:13 PM EST

Ok, this is way off topic and I know I've already made a lot of posts, but I just saw something that made me shout "hooray!" But then made me Gasp!

TheOneRing.net has posted a link to some comments made by John Rhys-Davies about LOTR. He raves about them and says if PJ has his way we can be looking forward to TEN HOURS OF FILM in total for the trilogy!!!!!!! !! ! !
!!
!
but............ then he begins to talk about Gimli and near the end of the interview says that "the other thing about Gimli is that he knows that he could be corrupted by the ring so after trying to destroy it, he never again touches it, he never again tries to get near to it or anything like that."
WHHHAAAAATTTTT!!!!!!!!??????????
Am I just having a severe brain freeze???? I don't remember Gimli trying to destroy the ring!!! Maybe I'm misinterpreting what he said. What's he gonna do? hammer it or something??? and when?? A the council or something???? Boing! Might be kind of comedic I guess, and would show the indestructibility of the ring, but why add this and take out Bombadill?? Say it isn't so PJ!

Am I forgetting something???

Posted by Phil @ 2001 Jun 21 01:22 PM EST

Oh, Sam was well-aware of Rosie before his quest began :). But that's all in the next chapter. I really like the way Sam and Rosie's romance is structured in the book, that it's only revealed in the end. I think Sam means it to be that way. But that's all in the next chapter, too.

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jun 21 01:24 PM EST

What a nob I am! (no offense Nob) here's the link:
http://www.popcorn.co.uk/news/story.jhtml?id=49380

Posted by Phil @ 2001 Jun 21 01:25 PM EST

Allison: I agree with what you said, "Frodo's always going to be more important to Sam than the Ring," but I think that Sam would come to the realization that the best thing he could do for Frodo, and what he would have wanted, was to be knocked in the volcano. I agree that he would try to talk Frodo down first, and probably be slow about coming to the realization of what he needed to do, which makes me think he would have had trouble pulling it off. But he can be surprisingly resourceful sometimes.

I don't know if this is the forum to talk about movie rumors that some of us will consider to be spoilers.

Paul, I think the importance of the Sackville-Bagginses is more obvious when you read LOTR in conjunction with The Hobbit, there are all sorts of parallels between the two stories, not least in the homecoming scenes.

Posted by Kevin @ 2001 Jun 21 01:36 PM EST

For all you Sam and Rosie lovers: the History of Middle Earth book "Sauron Defeated" has an extended ending that gives us a glimpse of their relationship you might enjoy.

I'm definitely going to have postpartum depression after the next chapter. This has been great! I was thinking how in all my times through LoTR before, I always went it alone. It's amazing being in such a great fellowship. Thanks to all of you for a wonderful journey.

Posted by Karen @ 2001 Jun 21 02:40 PM EST

In the scenerio where Gollum doesn't make it to the cracks of Doom, I still think Sam and Frodo would have gone in to complete the quest.

Sam clearly intends to get himself and Frodo to the Cracks of Doom or die trying. By going with Frodo rather than forcing him to give up the quest he proved his willingness to give his own and Frodo's life for the quest. If he hadn't gone back for Frodo, he would not have been able to complete the quest alone and Frodo would have broken under torture and given away the quest anyway. He made the correct choices.

At the mountain, he would have tried to talk Frodo out of claiming the ring. Frodo would get angry, but wouldn't kill Sam outright nomatter what. Sam would have been forced to try to wrestle the ring from him, which would drive Frodo insane with rage, as it probably did when Gollum tried to do it.

Sam wouldn't resort to biting off Frodo's finger. That isn't guaranteed to destroy the ring or be successful. The only sure way to destroy the ring is to wrestle both of them over the edge into the cracks of doom. That's what Sam would do.

Sam didn't come all this way just to fall down and worship Frodo as Lord of the Ring. They were not going to leave that mountain with the Ring unless it was over Sam's dead body and he knew it.

Could it have gotten as far as the Black Riders showing up to worship Frodo? Once the first sign of them arrived, if it took that long, Sam's will would have overcome any doubt and in they would go, thus destroying the Ring and themselves. That's what he was prepared to do from the moment they crossed Anduin. He didn't have to do it, but that was the quest he was assigned to do. He was going to do it.

Posted by Arthur @ 2001 Jun 21 03:14 PM EST

I agree with Arthur,
in the scenario where Gollum does not show, Sam would try to force the ring off of Frodo's hand and they would both roll into the cracks of Doom. This fits in with the idea that the ring is a character itself. Sam would be fighting the ring and the ring would defend itself the only way it can...by controlling Frodo to keep the ring on and keep Sam away. Sam wouldn't think of it as attacking Frodo but rescueing him danger. Not unlike when Sam goes to rescue Frodo after the Shelob incident.

Posted by Big Mike @ 2001 Jun 21 04:11 PM EST

But how would Sam wrestle with, let alone, find Frodo? He can't see him. I also think that Allison was right when she said "the new Dark Lord Frodo would probably bat him [Sam] into the volcano for his efforts." We see how Bilbo and Frodo act when the ring is threatened to be taken from them.

Sorry if my former post might be seen as a movie spoiler. I'll ask Allison if she wants to remove it.

Posted by Phil @ 2001 Jun 21 05:04 PM EST

Are people here really that concerned about LOTR movie spoilers? As far as I can see people have been dropping movie spoilers into this website all along the way. I posted one myself earlier today about Rosie and, like Phil, figured Kevin was talking to me :). But there were major discussions about Arwen's role in the movie in earlier posts, etc., so I was giving no thought to removing movie spoilers figuring most LOTR fans are more interested in how the movie may move away from the text than trying to avoid such spoilers.

I found your comment very interesting, Phil, especially after I went and listened to the clip you referred to (a very surprising clip!), but I'm a bit nervous to talk about it now.

I would suggest, if there are people concerned about movie spoilers here maybe we should put spoiler warnings on the top of messages that contain such info *Movie Spoiler Warning* or something like that, so such things can be discussed, but people can avoid those messages if they would rather not know. Personally, I'm enjoying the info about the movie.

Let me know what you all think.

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jun 21 05:25 PM EST

We could discuss the "no-Gollum" scenario for ever because it is hypothetical (come back Debbie) but hypothetically speaking if Frodo could just bat Sam into the cracks of doom for his efforts, why couldn't he just bat Gollum into the cracks when Gollum attacked him when he was invisible and had claimed the ring? (or the ring claimed him) The ring did not seam to give Frodo any phisical strength and one might think that with the ring on, Frodo could have commanded Gollum to not attack him or to cast himself into the fire. (which he did only after Frodo had lost the ring).

If Frodo had a power over Gollum when he was "Taming Smeagol" just by possesing the ring. Shouldn't Frodo have had a much greater power over Gollum when he claimed the ring? Or was Gollum too crazy at that moment?

Posted by Big Mike @ 2001 Jun 21 05:38 PM EST

I think Movie spoliers have been given and are fine as long as they don't spoil the plot of the story ahead of where Debbie has read. Maybe a discussion topic for later could be the differences in the movie from the books.

Posted by Big Mike @ 2001 Jun 21 05:45 PM EST

"At the mountain, he would have tried to talk Frodo out of claiming the ring. Frodo would get angry, but wouldn't kill Sam outright nomatter what."

I find this statement touching, Authur, but, like Phil, I don't believe it. I think under the full influence of the Ring, especially if he was under threat of losing the Ring, Frodo would be more than capable of killing Sam. It's a terrible thought, but there's lots of evidence to back it up.

We're shown two examples in Mordor of the madness that can come over Frodo when Sam either has or offers to take the Ring. Frodo even reaches for a sword to protect the Ring in the second scene. That's why that scene in the tower upsets me so much- I can well imagine what Frodo might have been driven to if Sam hadn't returned the Ring right away.

It's given me a very healthy respect for the evil of the Ring. I think Frodo and Sam have the deepest and most profound relationship in the book. I'm also convinced, in the right circumstances, the power of the Ring could have torn apart that relationship like paper.

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jun 21 05:50 PM EST

I don't want to make Allison nervous or interfere with exchange of ideas. For me, I don't want to engage in second guessing Peter Jackson when there is no opportunity to actually see what he's doing and I think too much specific information will detract from my first viewing of the film. I would also hate to get too sidetracked from what I love about this site, which is the exchange of ideas about *reading* Tolkien. But there's plenty of room for different threads of conversation, and I think I would be adequately protected by a spoiler warning such as Allison suggests.

Posted by Kevin @ 2001 Jun 21 06:07 PM EST

This "batting Sam/Gollum into the cracks" discussion brings up an interesting point that I've never really been too clear on: How does the power of the ring actually manifest itself when used, aside from invisibility and agelessness?

Every time Bilbo/Frodo/Sam wear it they enter a different perception space (well, Frodo does - I don't recall Bilbo's "experience" being described in great detail), but that's about all we really get. The implications are much more severe.

Apparently physical strength is not an attributable power of the ring. JRRT never mentions any strength enhancements when it is worn.

"One ring to rule them all, One ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them"

So, according to the rhyme it's power is to rule and control the other rings, and presumabley the wearers of those rings. The Three are hidden (well, sort of), I'm not sure anyone knows where the seven are (if anyone knows the answer to this, please enlighten me!), although the One could likely find them. The Nine, of course, are well known.

However, if "One ring to rule them" means that the wearer of the One can command the wearers of the others, then why at the Fords of Bruinen, when Frodo puts the ring on, don't the Nine obey him? Could it just be Frodo's lack of mastery of the ring?

The Three are used to "preserve time", near as I can tell, hence the timelessness of some places (struggling... trying hard to avoid spoilers... 8-). I suspect they also have other powers. JRRT mentions that when Sauron first put on the ring, the Elves detected it and hid theirs (although they likely used them significantly during the Third Age while Sauron was in "exile").

I guess it all boils down to knowing "how" to use the ring to command the power of the other rings.

Posted by Lindo @ 2001 Jun 21 06:12 PM EST

I agree with Big Mike. This is Debbie's site, so our responsibility is trying to avoid story spoilers for her. It's not our responsibility to avoid Movie-spoilers for everyone else, too.

Speaking of responsibility...I'd like to add just one more post on the guilt issue... (bear with me, I find this psychological topic very inspiring! :))) )

There's a big difference between *being* guilty and *feeling* guilty. None of us, and noone around Frodo, and not Tolkien himself, think that Frodo *is* guilty. None of us blame him for his shortcomings on Mount Doom. But that doesn't necessarily stop a sensitive character like Frodo from *feeling* guilty!

The guilty feeling tells you that you have done something wrong or hurtful or forbidden *to others*. To be able to feel guilt, you need to be capable of empathy - an ability to put yourself in the other persons situation. If you lack in empathy, you can't really realize that your actions hurt the other. And hence no guilt. That is the essence of psychopathy, actually. Which is probably quite close to our notion of evil... A lot of really guilty people don't *feel* guilty at all... I mean, do you think Sauron had empathy or felt guilt?

Frodo is a very empathic and responsible young hobbit to begin with. He does take on the greatest responsibility of all in attempting to carry The Ring to Mordor. His sufferings doesn't make him cynical, but developes his empathy, or, if you wish, his goodness. Nothing has only one sunny side, though. I would guess that his tendency to guilty feelings grows as well, along with the empathy. Guilt is an essential feeling. But too much and *inadequate* self-reproach is not healthy. As maybe Frodo bears witness of - at least I think so. Poor, dear hobbit. :(

Thanks Phil for your earlier comment on this issue! :))) Trying to be emphatic is really a challenge. And sometimes the hardest one to show empathy towards is yourself... And thanks for referring to the Tom Bombadil poem! Beautiful! I think I know how you mean. :)

As for the Sam & Frodo alternatives on Mount Doom, this discussion really shows what a great solution Tolkien found to this dilemma. All the other alternatives are almost unbearable... :((

Sorry for this extremely long post! :)

Posted by Katarina @ 2001 Jun 21 06:13 PM EST

i actually have a question for you posters, to kinda get off the sam and frodo binge...
the book is named Lord of the Rings. Does this refer to Sauron, since its rings and not just ring? if this is true, why did Tolkien name the books after a character that is basically non-existant? or does it refer to the One Ring itself, as the master of all the other Rings of Power? that might make more sense i guess, if one thinks of the Ring as its own character...i would really appreciate some input on this....

Posted by aurora @ 2001 Jun 21 06:14 PM EST

in an attempt to answer Lindo's question about how the ring manifests itself...

magic in Tolkien's world is not like most other percieve it, not like magic wands and fairy dust and all that. its much more subtle and runs deeper in the plot and in the characters. just look at the elves. they are magical beings, thats for sure, but its somehow more shaded and comes on slower. example: debbie first thought that something was gonna happen to the hobbits after their stay with Gildor and his party, like they would wake up 20 years later or something, which of course didnt happen. but later in his brawl with the riders Frodo shouts that elvish phrase from outta nowhere (srry i dont know what exactly it was). he didnt even know what it meant.
THATS the way that magic works in tolkiens world...

so the ring's magic is kinda the same thing, it does provide invisability and agelessness that we know, but its purpose is mainly to break down the humanity (i use that term loosely of course) of the wearer. the Ring is more like distruction in its purest form, it needs a living body so it takes one and even that it destroys so that it is no longer a true being (like Sauron or the Ringwraiths). even Sauron is more like a slave to the Ring that he is his own person. invisibility and agelessness are mere side effects to this whole purpose of allowing the Ring to take over and destroy all of ME, eventually i assume

i know that was a long answer to a short question, but hopefully there was some truth to be found

Posted by aurora @ 2001 Jun 21 06:35 PM EST

Hey Kevin,

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the thoughtfulness of your Thesis. I read it a while back whilst surfing the one ring and took some satisfaction at seeing that my thoughts about the books weren't as isolated as I might have imagined. In addition I have to give you big points for including the quote from 'Bored' at the beginning of your section on 'Men'. Although the book certainly has it's juvenile tendencies it scores a remarkable number of harsh points for observations about mankind not to mention great pot shots at all that 'Hy Stile' as the Prof. might have called it! Now if only we could get those blockheads at the village voice to read it and try more substance and less *smarm* in their musings.

Posted by Paul H. @ 2001 Jun 21 07:06 PM EST

Aurora:

The following quote, from (I think) Book II, Chapter I, clears up who "the Lord of the Ring" is. Is this the same being who is "the Lord of the RingS"? I don't know, but I think so.

As for _why_ the book is called "The Lord of the Rings", I really don't know. If anyone knows, or has any good theories, I'd be interested to see them.

Anywho, here's the quote:

"Hurray!" cried Pippin, springing up. "Here is our noble cousin! Make way for Frodo, Lord of the Ring!"

"Hush!" said Gandalf from the shadows at the back of the porch. "Evil things do not come into this valley; but all the same we should not name them. The Lord of the Ring is not Frodo, but the master of the Dark Tower of Mordor, whose power is again stretching out over the world! We are sitting in a fortress. Outside it is getting dark."

Posted by Don @ 2001 Jun 21 07:16 PM EST

Lindo: "I'm not sure anyone knows where the seven are (if anyone knows the answer to this, please enlighten me!"

By the time LOTR begins, Sauron had regained three of the seven rings of the dwarves; the others had been melted by the dragons during their usurpations of the dwarven hoards.

(Side note: There was apparently a great deal of dwarf-vs.-dragon conflict during the late Second Age and the Third Age that was pretty much glossed over in the Tales of Years, probably because most of it occurred at the strongholds of the other dwarven houses [as opposed to the House of Durin], far from the northwest of Middle-Earth. Eventually, though, the dragons seem to have gotten the worst of it, because it's almost certain that if there had been any dragons left in Middle-Earth after Smaug's [bad spoiler! bad!], Sauron would have called them to himself and used them during the War of the Ring.)

The last of the seven rings, as you'll recall, was taken from Thorin Oakenshield's father Thrain in Dol Guldur. Sauron must have been completely oblivious that Gandalf had found this out, because he sent one of the Nazgul to Dain Ironfoot to promise three rings to the dwarves if they would help him find "Baggins"; I imagine if Dain and his people had known that Thrain had been tortured to death in the process of retrieving one of those rings, they might have become insane enough with anger to attack the Nazgul on the spot.

Presumably the three remaining rings (along with many other artifacts of dark power) were destroyed when the One Ring was, and their remains lie buried deep beneath the wreck of the Barad-Dur.

Posted by Randy Hoffman @ 2001 Jun 21 07:45 PM EST

A postscript: The only ring whose fate I wonder about is the Witch-King's. Did it just dissolve when he was vanquished? (Surely it wasn't left among his robes on the battlefield!) Even if it did survive his passing, I'm sure it would have failed (like all the other rings) once the One was destroyed.

Posted by Randy Hoffman @ 2001 Jun 21 07:57 PM EST

I sorta disagree with aurora's final assesment of the Ring's nature. I agree with you on its effects on mortals, and of the effects of the nine rings on the Nazgul (there are some interesting discussions in Morgoth's Ring, one of the History of Middle Earth books) about the relationship between spirit and body and, by extension, what happens to the body as a result of the interference by the great rings. But I don't think that the Ring exists to destroy in and of itself (though it contains the spirit of Sauron's malice, I don't think that it has any particular "purpose" as it were), nor do I think that Sauron is enslaved by it in the same way that others are. Its his creation, and contains his power. Thus, while others are destroyed or beaten down by its influence, all it would do to Sauron is allow him to reclaim and amplify his own native power.

That, in a nutshell, is the actual function of the One Ring - to augment the power dwelling within its wearer. Thus, Frodo could never become as powerful as Sauron, simply because he doesn't have that innate power that a Maiar spirit possesses. But Gandalf, or Galadriel (the latter being, supposedly, the mightiest elf ever [according to Unfinished Tales, anyhow]) would easily become as strong or much stronger than Sauron. They'd still be under its influence though, and would become like Sauron in character.

Posted by Nathan @ 2001 Jun 21 08:00 PM EST

Pippin - I have always loved that Frodo quote too. This chapter has some of the best lines. Rosie's is also one of my favorites.

Debbie - Thanks for a wonderful site and very funny comics. :)

Posted by dave @ 2001 Jun 21 08:40 PM EST

*Possible Spoiler Warning???*

The Lord of the Rings is Sauron. The One Ring was created to usurp command of the other rings away from the will of their bearers and turn them into conduits through which Sauron could exercise his will on those who wore them (in many cases, to whom he had given them) -- Since these were all powerful individuals who were Kings and/or The Wise, if his plans had worked he would have automatically gained dominion over them and eventually, over the lands and populations that they ruled.

9 rings to mortal men -- great Kings and Sorcerers in the east and South from which the Nazgul are corrupted shadows of their former selves (among them, some of the "Black Numenorans" -- men akin to those of Gondor but fallen under the sway of Sauron). Recall, Umbar was once a Numenoran colony.

7 for the Dwarf Lords... the descendants of Durin were given rings of power by Sauron (in his fair guise), but prooved to resilient and stubborn to bend easily to his will. The rings turned them into petty, greedy monarchs who lusted after material goods. One by one they were taken back from their wielders -- Sauron was by the time of LOTR in possession of all 7.

3 Elven rings... the bearers sensed Saurons intent when he put on the One because these were the last 3 created by Celebrimbor, the most powerful, and the only ones that WERE NOT CREATED WITH SAURON (ANATAR's) DIRECT AID. Thus they were not at the complete domination of the One Ring, but would nevertheless fall under it's sway if they were used while the One was in Sauron's possession. They were used during the Third age to maintain the Elven enclaves but were still tied to the One, thus they and their works could only last as long as the One.

All in all... Sauron's plan really didn't work out too well (1 for 3... maybe 1.5 for 3 if you figure it may have screwed over the Dwarves somewhat).

As to Sauron's relationship to the One... HE IS NOT A SLAVE TO IT. The One Ring IS Sauron. He imbued it with the greater part of his power when he created it. It was necessary for him to subsume this ammount of his own power and will into the Ring when he made it for it to be able to seize control of the other rings. When it was lost he was diminished and even the Sauron that we see in this tale is but a shadow of his former self without the ring... the ring is part of his essence, that is why it is impossible for anyone else, no matter how powerful or how good their intentions to successfully wield the ring... the corrupting influence of Saurons essence within the ring would eventually twist them to evil creating another Dark Lord that mirrored Sauron (Dare I say reincarnate Sauron in the physical shell of the ring's claimant?).

Phew, sorry 'bout the length

Posted by Franc @ 2001 Jun 21 08:42 PM EST

Sorry, Randy is right...

3 surviving Dwarven rings

Posted by Franc @ 2001 Jun 21 08:46 PM EST

The Witch-King's ring was not on him. Sauron held all 9 of the Nazgul's rings with him, guaranteeing their subservience to him. Their remnants would also be in the ruins of Barad-Dur.

Posted by James @ 2001 Jun 21 09:26 PM EST

Since there hasn't been any serious complaints about movie spoilers, I think we will keep to the policy of just putting a quick spoiler on the top of those letters in deference to the people who don't want to know, so...

*Movie Spoiler*

I was intrigued by Phil's letter earlier today about Gimli, so I went to check out theonering.net and discovered it's become a big story over there. So, Gimli is going to attempt to destroy the Ring at The Council of Elrond. Seemed a rather odd addition to me at first, but then it occurred to me Jackson is probably trying to find ways to make that scene as visual as possible, being that there is so much exposition at that meeting (I assume they'll also use a bunch of flashbacks, too). It's interesting, none the less.

*Movie spoiler off*

Pippin: I really like that Frodo quote, too.

Heh, so I notice being home sick all day and facing a daunting set of 30 report cards that I'm still pushing through makes me write dark, angsty letters over here :). And part of me says, gee, I shouldn't do that anymore, I think I freaked out Katarina with the hypothetical Frodo/Sam stuff (waves at Katarina :)), but then I think about the next chapter and I know better than to think I can give up angsty letters at this point... :)

But it will be fun to have the freedom to talk about -all- of LOTR even though it will be sad to have the journey over. And Deb is going to read "The Hobbit" eventually :).

And doesn't it strike you as amusing that so many people apologize for writing long posts over here when those meaty, detailed posts are often the most fun?

OK, time to stop rambling and procrastinating and get back to report cards...

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jun 21 09:30 PM EST

I've enjoyed the discussions on Saruman, Frodo, Merry and the nature of mercy, as well as the discussion about Sam and Frodo at the Crack. So here are a few more thoughts in Debbies absence :)

For the former I would agree that Tolkien does not seem to resolve the tension between Frodo's pacifism and Merry's forceful approach in the larger story. However in Saruman's case - his fate has already been sealed and plays out despite Frodo's mercy. It concludes of it's own dynamic though, and not from hobbit vengeance - an important point I believe. This probably bears on the potence of Saruman's curse of the Shire.

I feel that it was Tolkien's intent to show a variety of responses to terrible trials, highlight the value of mercy and not "playing God" - a "who are we to judge who can not see all nor know all consequences" theme. Yet to also emphasize action and stiff resistance to evil. However not choosing between these two approaches, but showing them both interacting to produce a final result - a yin-yang examination if you will.

At the Crack I could see Sam pulling Frodo in with him - if he had managed to do so before Frodo had his will focused with the Ring. More than a slight hesitation and I believe it would be too late.

On the other rings - they were (I think someone mentioned this) all made by the Elves in Hollin and Sauron advised the Elves in this effort. This resulted in his ability to command the wearers of those rings when he made his One Ring. When he first attempted to put on the one and was exposed, he made war on the Elves and captured all the lesser rings except the Three. Perhaps he then further modified those rings he had captured to make them more evil - I find it a bit hard to believe the Elves could have been so snowed as to craft completely corrupt objects to begin with.

By the time of the LotR tale the Nine no longer wear their rings - Sauron holds them himself and the wraiths do his bidding as servants of his will. Frodo could not have commanded them without much effort, cunning and great force of will. Tolkien suggests that they would have delivered Frodo and the Ring to Sauron through trickery if Gollum had not destroyed it.

Posted by Christopher B. @ 2001 Jun 21 09:43 PM EST

thank you so much for correcting me!

i mean hey, what does a 16 year old have to say about life anyway

o and interesting answers to my question...

Posted by aurora @ 2001 Jun 21 10:39 PM EST

To Aurora

In regard to the book being named "The Lord of the Rings", this is actually an abbreviation of the full title (as given in the Red Book) which is revealed in the next chapter. If you refer to that full title, you will see that it makes more sense. For commercial purposes, the title was probably shortened by the publisher.

Posted by brian @ 2001 Jun 21 11:10 PM EST

Hi Debbie! This is my first posting! Excuse my english! I followed your reading with interest!

I read LOTR so many times. The only thing I remember from my first reading (when I was a teen) was to see how the hobbits have grown and can handle a situation that would be difficult one year before (in the scouring of the Shire)! It impressed me at the time!

My french version of LOTR has just one appendice: story of Arwen and Aragon. It's seemed to have more intersting appendices in the english version! Perhaps I should buy one! Is it worth the reading?

Finally, I tried the Silmarillion once but never got too far (perhaps I was too young). It could be interesting to read it in french at the same time you read it in english!

Posted by Pierre @ 2001 Jun 21 11:27 PM EST

How about Saruman's ring? I have come to believe over time that there were more rings than the 9, 7, 3, and the one. Somewhere Gandalf mentions that Saruman had a ring on his finger. Long had Saruman studied ring-lore, and he was aligned with Aule, as were all the workers of craft. I believe Saruman created his own ring. I wonder how powerful it was?

Also intriguing is Gandalf's conversation in Shadow of the Past where he explains his thoughts, going all the way back to when Bilbo found the ring. Gandalf mentions that he knew that it was a Great Ring right away. It seems to me that since he already knew where the 9 and the 3 were, the only other Great Ring it could have been would have been one of the 7. But even at that time Gandalf must have known what happened to most of the 7, or had a pretty darned good guess. It wasn't long after that he learned where the last of the 7 was. If the only Great Rings were the 9, 7, 3, and 1, then Gandalf certainly should have known that Bilbo's was The One. But it took him many many years to come to that conclusion. I don't buy for one second that it was simply an oversight on Gandalf's part. There must have been other rings, very likely other Great Rings, even if they weren't quite "great" enough to be mentioned in the rhyme. I'm too lazy to look up all the relevant quotes for you all, but I'm sure the experts on this board could do so. What do you all think? Mostly when I pose this question, I get told by others that the only Great Rings were the ones mentioned in the story. But that doesn't fit for me.

Posted by Ufthak @ 2001 Jun 22 12:23 AM EST

Ufthak, Yes it is said that perhaps there were other rings, but they were believed lost in the wreck of Hollin and history known to those we meet only told of the 3,9,7 and one.

Saruman's ring is suggested to be one that he made himself as a product of his studies - a rather simple attempt by him to replicate the work of Celebrimbor and the Elves (and of course Annatar the Fair).

Posted by Christopher B. @ 2001 Jun 22 12:38 AM EST

Regarding Saruman's ring, it was something he crafted himself later through his studies of Ring lore. What did it do? I heard an interesting theory about that. The One Ring allowed a strong bearer to command others. Saruman would have certainly have wanted that in his ring. What character sticks by Saruman when he certainly should have left? Wormtongue. Perhaps Saruman's ring allowed him to command Wormtongue, until he lost the ring or the strength. Yep, Sauron had 9 Ringwraiths. Saruman had 1 - Ringworm! :)
Tolkien never mentioned that possibility, by the way - that's a fan speculation/joke.

Posted by James @ 2001 Jun 22 12:54 AM EST

The theory about "ringworm" mentioned by James is further extrapolated, along with many other theories, on the Tolkien Sarcasm Page under a Section called Crackpot Theories.

http://www.speakeasy.org/~ohh/tolksarc.htm

Posted by brian @ 2001 Jun 22 01:17 AM EST

Lindo, I agree that the Ring probably doesn’t give the bearer any physical power but I don’t think Frodo could command the Ringwraiths. Actually my question is: did Frodo really become a new Lord of the One Ring??? I thought that the only Lord was Sauron no matter if he’s got the Ring at the moment or not. I know, there is that important “claiming” but how about Gollum or Isildur? Do you think they hadn’t claimed the Ring? What actually makes difference if I “claim” the Ring or if I just “consider it as mine”? I know that Gollum had no idea what ring it is - was it that important difference? (I think Isildur, Gollum and Bilbo considered the Ring as being their but both Isildur and Gollum were betrayed by it later as the Ring struggled to get back to Sauron). Could I be right? It would explain why the Nazguls obeyed Sauron AFTER Frodo had claimed the Ring.
....OK, I suppose I’m wrong :o), the most important is to know how to use the Ring, probably...
Aurora: I’ve always thought that Sauron is the Lord of the RINGS. The One was forged to rule the rest (except the Three) and the Lord of the One became then the Lord of them all. Am I right?

BTW after all the discussion about Frodo being/feeling guilty I’m very happy that he is not a real person. Or else I had probably gone and adopted him ...or something like that :o)))

James: Ringworm - LOL:o)))

Posted by Katerina Str. @ 2001 Jun 22 04:09 AM EST

James,

Interesting suggestion.

Perhaps Saruman's ring also had something to do with his persuasiveness? Maybe it wasn't just his voice (or perhaps not at all), but also (or only) the influence of his ring working through his voice that allowed him to persuade people to do things they might otherwise not have done (such as persuading Treebeard to release him).

Posted by Pepijn Schmitz @ 2001 Jun 22 04:38 AM EST

Allison, did I guess that you guessed my meaning so many chapters back? It was, naturally, about Rosie Cotton.

By the way, I think that is what Galadriel tempted Sam with. I think only in Lothlorien did Sam realize he loved her. I dunno, maybe I'm too much a mush. :)

Posted by Christopher @ 2001 Jun 22 06:04 AM EST

Over 40 posts since I last looked (we all have to sleep at some point) and lots that I would have loved to respond to, had others not already done so saying most of (if not all) that I wanted to say.

Who is ‘The Lord Of The Rings’? What powers did the ring bestow and what were its full effects? Were there / are there other rings of power?

Nathan & Franc: You beat me to it regarding the rings powers and effects.
I would however add that the ring is used as a magnifier of power and abilities with some of it’s own built in abilities (such as invisibility). In order for the ring to be of use to Sauron in magnifying his power and abilities he had put some of his very essence into the ring for it to be magnified. Then whoever wore the ring, providing they had the ability to tap it’s power, would have at there beck and call the multiplied essence of Sauron’s power. Fortunately none of the ringbearers had the ability to become the Lord Of the Ring and tap it’s full power bar Sauron. No doubt the likes of Galadriel and Gandalf could have done so without too much effort, however the essence of Sauron within the ring would have tainted them.
As for the other rings, in particular the 9, their effect was to ensnare their owners. They did this by providing an addictive concoction of power (addiction factor added by Sauron), whilst at the same time leeching the very essence of life from their owners turning them into wraiths (this effect also added by Sauron) forever linked to and subservient to their rings. It is through this subservience to their rings, which were linked to the one ring that Sauron had mastery over them. When Sauron is without his controlling ring he retains control of the nine by withholding their rings from them.
It’s my guess that Sauron’s ring was just as addictive for himself and was designed to continue this leeching of essence in order to continue the process of magnifying his power by giving more and more of it to the ring. This backfired when he lost the ring and the greater part of his power and essence.

This train of thought that begs the question, when did Sauron take the rings from the nine? Surely the nine are more powerful while wearing their respective rings, however they are then under no obligation to serve Sauron unless he is in possession of the controlling ring. Did Sauron know / prophesise / worry that he would lose the ring and so whilst in control of the nine force them to hand over the rings? The alternatives are that after losing the controlling ring he somehow managed to obtain the nine rings without mastery of over the nine ringwraiths. Or that the ringwraith transformation process does not link them to the controlling ring but the person wearing the ring at the time of the transformation process. Maybe the essence that the nine rings leeched was channelled via the controlling ring to its bearer and this is how the nine remain servants of Sauron, but then why withhold the rings which surely make them more powerful servants?

It’s all very confusing. Any ideas?

As has become compulsory, I apologise for this long rambling post. :)
James: Ringworm. I’m still grinning ear to ear. :)

Posted by Annatar The Fair @ 2001 Jun 22 07:23 AM EST

Christopher: Oh, yes, I knew exactly what you meant when you hinted at Sam's other source of strength during his journey :). I laughed and said to myself, "It's Rosie Cotton!".

But as I said to Annatar above, I'm quite convinced that Sam was in love with Rosie long before he left The Shire with Frodo, which is why she would be such a source of strength for him- all Sam's roads through Middle-Earth would lead back to her. The major quote I need to prove that, though, is still over in the next chapter :).

The reason he left her behind, though, and went on the quest even though he loved her seems to be hinted at in one of my very favorite Sam quotes from way back in Book 1, Chapter 4. Frodo asks Sam if he still feels any need to leave The Shire once he's seen the elves and Sam answers him:

"Yes, sir. I don't know how to say it, but after last night I feel different. I seem to see ahead, in a kind of way. I know we are going to take a very long road, into darkness; but I know I can't turn back. It isn't to see Elves now, nor dragons, nor mountains, that I want- I don't rightly know what I want: but I have something to do before the end, and it lies ahead, not in The Shire. I must see it through, sir, if you understand me."

Such a lovely quote. So Sam feels he must go in search of something ellusive, something he knows he must do, before he can come back to his heart and Rosie in The Shire. There's just some beautiful themes in play here, but, again, delving into that further should be left for the next chapter.

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jun 22 07:30 AM EST

I just looked it up in the Appendices last night, and Gandalf discovered Thrain in Dol Guldur even before Bilbo found the One. The number of years that pass before Gandalf is convinced it is the One is very many. There must have been others.

Posted by Ufthak @ 2001 Jun 22 08:52 AM EST

I also find it very intriguing that Gandalf didn't identify it sooner, but....

... I don't think he could account for all of the 7. Some were 'presumed' to have been devoured by dragons, but this would have been almost impossible to confirm. So he may have thought it was one of the seven.

... He also needed to find out how he could get some proof that it was the one. he couldn't dial up Sauron and say, "hey ol' buddy, I've got this here plain ring and I want to know if it might be yours." Hence the research in Minas Tirith and the search for Gollum. It would have been very dangerous and foolhardy to send Frodo (or Bilbo) into Mordor with one of the 7. Whoopdedoo! We destroyed one of the 7!! And now Sauron knows our plans for the one, so we'll die on Orodruin while he fortifies it. Fantastic! I think Gandalf wanted to make absolutely sure it was the one before doing anything with it.

I don't know the exact span of years when Gandalf could have figured out it was the one, but I must concede that even with the above, the existence of other great rings would make for an easier explanation.

Posted by Phil @ 2001 Jun 22 09:23 AM EST

It would be a great twist to the plot if it turned out at the end the ring they had just destroyed was one of the seven!

Posted by Annatar The Fair @ 2001 Jun 22 09:27 AM EST

In his letters Tolkien says even Galadriel probably wouldn't be strong enough to use the Ring against Sauron, because it's his by right.

Aragorn could wrest control of Orthanc's palantir from Sauron because it was Aragorn's by right of inheritance. That's also why Sauron couldn't use the palantir to dominate Denethor as effectively as he did Saruman, because as steward Denethor had some right to the palantir but Sauron had none.

In middle earth, the rightful owner of a object has an advantage in any mental struggle for control of that object. The ring is rightfully Sauron's which gives him a strong advantage over any self-proclaimed ringlord. The ringlord has the advantage of possession but Tolkien felt that only Sauron's fellow Maiar had the mental strength to win that battle.

If Sauron did lose, he wouldn't fall under the control of the new ringlord, he would be cut off from the ring, destroying him as surely as if the ring had been destroyed.

Frodo had no chance of using the ring against Sauron, or even the Nazgul. He would have had to wrest control of the Nazgul's wills from Sauron, but he lacked the strength.

Tolkien never says when Sauron took the Nine off the Nazgul but it was probably in the third age and by deceit or force.

Posted by Robert @ 2001 Jun 22 09:48 AM EST

Christopher B: I notice in a posting of yours you refer to Annatar The Fair. Can you confirm for me if Sauron was actually known as such or was he sim